search_commands_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching 'command history' and the fields searched, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the output contains. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured: a brief purpose statement, scope clarification, and parameter explanations in a clean 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits) and usage guidelines. For a search tool with siblings, this leaves gaps in helping the agent use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'query' is a 'Search keyword' and 'limit' has a 'default 20' with 'Max results' clarification. This explains what each parameter does beyond their titles ('Query', 'Limit'), though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., query syntax). With 2 parameters and good semantic clarification, it earns above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search command history by keyword' and specifies the search scope ('across command name, category, and context fields'). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_history_tool' (likely broader retrieval) and 'delete_command_tool' (mutation). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_history_tool' in the description text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_history_tool' or 'log_command_tool'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from tool names alone, which is insufficient for reliable selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.